A Jeffersonian Looks At The World
Gun Rights: What Did The Founders Say?
This is not intended to be a scholarly work! It is simply a context for why the right to keep and carry arms was included and a little about the debate. There was so much said on the subject (the founders liked a good argument) that I had to pare it down to a few, and I chose some of the less commonly quoted founding fathers to speak.
I suppose that the first to speak on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should be the Constitution itself:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There was a debate among the founders. Truly there were many debates among the founders, but this one was what brought about our second amendment.
There seemed to be little opposition to the fact that individuals should act upon their right to self defense and keep and bare arms. That was not the question.
The question which inspired this debate was the question of a standing army.
Militia and Army
Many were in favor of such a body, and many were not. The chief objection was that in all cases throughout history, a standing army had been used to oppress it’s own people. The idea of the militia, variously defined even in those days was brought up and given some debate, in the end it did not seem to matter much how it was defined, but here are some of the founders ideas related to the militia:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” – George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, from Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts got right to the heart of the matter asking: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
At this stage, the militia was understood to be the body of the people themselves. The militia did, at least in part, gradually evolve into a standing army, but each state continued to maintain it’s own units, and neither the standing army nor the militia ever superseded the rights of the people themselves to own weapons. In the ensuing years, militia and army were both accepted, and neither were completely trusted by the populace, who, you will recall, had just fought a war against the standing army of their own country! The distrust seems to have been built in on purpose.
A Standing Army
Noah Webster takes us back to the principle again and shows why a standing army could be built, but kept under check by the people themselves:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Knowing that many of the delegates didn’t really want a standing army. Many of the Federalists, among them; Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and Jay sought to show that it would better serve the needs of the new nation if there existed a well regulated, well armed always prepared combat force available in case of attacks from other countries. They argued that no one should fear the army, because a well armed public would always outnumber any standing army and would always posses arms of equal lethality. It seems to have not occurred to them to think otherwise
At least that was the argument then, and they were convincing enough that we ended up, eventually, with a standing army, and because of existing militias and standing armies, the second amendment was needed to ensure the people themselves the right to defense against any and all, to quote Tench Cox:
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution (Using the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
Knowing this, to a modern reader the second amendment could be understood to read something like this:
A well regulated militia (that is a formal army) being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (that is, the right of the people to keep and carry arms to defend against a formal military or for other self defense) shall not be infringed. (infringed means touched, it means that this right is not to be tinkered with legislated away, blocked or otherwise tampered with!)Or:
Since an organized military is needed for the safety of the state, the right of the people to keep and carry firearms shall not be touched!Or:
Since it is necessary to have an organized military, it is necessary that the people themselves have the right to possess arms for the purpose of defending themselves against them!
Whether one sees the militia as the citizen army, or the militia as the army makes little difference in the end. Either way, the people have the right to arms to protect themselves against tyranny from armies, militias, outsiders or all the above!
I am not sure why such plain language has caused such disagreements in the American public and politic. It seems plain and simple. I have great difficulty understand why some people thought it had something to do with hunting. This is particularly peculiar given the enormous body of information left by founders who were dealing with these issues at the start of our republic.
The founders speak on sticking to your guns
I wanted to let the people who were involved in the debate speak for themselves! There is much recorded on the subject and not all debaters, even on the same side of the issue agreed on the terminology as you will see. You can almost hear between the lines of the debate. and see the missing parts and sedgways! I propose to let them argue it out in your mind, and allow you the opportunity Here are just a few more genuine quotes from founders of our Republic regarding the second amendment:
“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” — Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ” Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …” James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …” Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …” Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” Zachariah Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
3 Ways Of Viewing The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment Is An Individual Right To Defend Against Government Power.
This view says that the right to keep and carry is an individual right. It goes like this: Since it is deemed necessary to have an armed body (militia, army, etc.) the right of individuals to own arms for defending against them can’t be stolen away! Do an experiment for me, read the 2nd amendment out loud a few times paying special attention to the punctuation. I think you will then see the picture. In fact, the government did in the 1790s establish rules for age and other requirements which included owning certain types of weapons, a certain amount of powder, and a certain number and size of lead balls all of the type and style of the armies of the day. That was militia as opposed to individuals.
It was the great fear of many in the colonies during the ratification process that state and nationalized militias and standing armies posed a threat to the people, as they always do eventually, such as in the war they had just fought with what was at the time, their own government. It was argued by Hamilton in Federalist, and others as well that it was okay to have a standing military because the people themselves would always be armed and that they would always be a larger body than any standing force.
It was put well also by Mr. Webster who makes this very clear in his defense of the Constitution: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
That pretty much describes the fear and tells the tale concerning why and what 2A means. The populace as individuals being well-armed, and in those days with superior weaponry to that of regulars would be able to prevent a federal or state takeover of the rights of the people!
This is why individual ownership is encouraged and recognized as a right, and why firearms of the type currently in use by armies are always covered. Let me reiterate: The purpose of individual ownership rights is to contain government as stated in the rightly read and understood amendment. This is not “allowed,” it is a right. The arms would of necessity be of the type current at the time, no matter what period they might be needed. Again: the right to keep and carry is an individual right! It was recognized because it was needed to check the authority of governments who might use the militia, army, any force, to enforce perverse laws.
Now, Like I have said many times already, laws concerning militia do not have ANYTHING to do with second amendment rights! Nothing! The amendment was written to CONFIRM the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and carry! Its purpose is clear from the wealth of writings from the people involved with the ratification of the Constitution and the entire historical context! Therefore, rules about militias, laws describing them, or any concoction unrelated to the individuals right to keep and carry are irrelevant! Plain and simple! Now, if you look at the purpose as described by Webster and Hamilton and dozens of others for that individual right, if you read the text itself right, you will come to the astonishing conclusion that this right would not meet its purpose if it referred only to non-military style weapons! Like it or not, that is the truth, and unless you can find some evidence to the contrary, from the context of that time and those participants in the process, you are without any valid argument! This I believe to be the most logical and rational interpretation of the text as it is seen in its historic context.
Was The Second Amendment About Individual Firearms For Militia Purposes?
Let me play the devil’s advocate at this point by defending a common misunderstanding of the text and context. This belief is that the Second Amendment is related to individual firearms ownership as related to militia use. This is probably the most common understanding but seems to be rebutted by the language itself. This point of view has some support from some of those who were pushing for ratification as in the case of George Mason: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Now, one of the chief modes of misunderstanding the Second Amendment is to interpret it in such a way that it would only apply to the firearms in use at that time. I ask people who use this argument to not respond on line but to send their response via horse and rider! If the 2nd amendment was written for the purpose of allowing arms ownership for arming individuals in the militia, effectively “allowing” the ownership of firearms for the purpose of defending the country, what type of firearms do you suspect that would mean today? Would it mean smoothbore flintlock muskets? Now, do you see the absurdity of the argument against private ownership of military-grade weapons?
Is The Second Amendment No Longer Valid Today?
There is only one other interpretation of the 2A text. That is that there is no individual right to possess arms since the militia and standing army have somehow superseded the Bill of Rights! It is an insanity preserved by only a small handful of far, far left thinkers in this country! I have great difficulty understanding how anyone could take the document designed to govern the government so far from its intellectual and contextual history that they come to conclude that part of it could be devoured by an executive order or an act of congress short of a Constitutional convention whereupon such an attempt would be defeated so soundly that the argument would forever die!
THE TRUE TRUMP TRAGEDY!There is so much tragedy in the current administrations approach to everything that it becomes hard to rank one above the other, but perhaps the true Trump tragedy is the political landscape of conservatives In America and even the rest of the world! According to many conservative writers and thinkers (the two are not always the same) trumpism means the end of the Goldwater type conservative movement and the takeover of Trump economic and social nationalism. A movement that believes that economic prosperity may not be in our best interest as a nation, that too much money and individual freedom leads to licentious behavior! It is a collectivist belief! This system pits religion against classical liberalism which embraced the natural law espoused by Locke which led to the greatest advancements in art and science and industry in human history, as well as our own founding documents! The mistake is to assume one opposes the other. “In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.” Alexis de Tocqueville
GUN CONTROL, ABORTION , FISCAL RESTRAINTThere is no more liberal or conservative in Washington, they are all left-leaning neocons! The trumpists are making hay with this! If you look at gun control, spending and Planned Parenthood funding, that is if you look beyond the rhetoric and see only what trump has actually done, he is the most liberal democratic president in history! Example A: Trump has done the highest levels of Planned Parenthood funding ever! You may say that he has tried to regulate abortion, but none of his regulations have any actual effect! Example B: Trump has signed Feinstein’s anti 2A and anti 4A gun control bill into law, has worked with Feinstein on an assault weapons ban, and regulated firearms accessories into illegality and confiscation! He is, not pro-gun! Example C: Trump has signed into law the most liberal and fiscally irresponsible spending bills in our countries history! How can you be a fiscal conservative and do that? Answer: If you do you are a liberal! Those of you who are on the left should love trump, those on the right should despise him, and those of libertarian-leaning should do the same! Trump should be the watershed for the coming election if you look at what he does and not what he says! Come on folks, I boiled this down to the Ipsus cruxes of the American political fiasco today! Surely someone has a comment or an argument with the truth! Do not ignore this, this is where we are, and if you find yourself on one or the other side of this, by now you know where you are! If we want to find our way out of the fuckery, this is where it starts!
Just How Stupid Is The Idea OF A Wall?The size of the problem If you brought all the people in the world to America they could all fit into Texas with the population density of New York city! We would probably put them all to work! That first phrase is something I swiped from Bob Murphy of the Mises Institute, the last part was from me and what I know about the labor force and business in the Lone Star State! The point I am making is that we are not being over run with people! In fact, we are going to need a lot more than we are getting now! Birth rates have slowed her in the U.S., and if we continue as we are, with both diminishing birthrates and diminishing immigration rates, we are going to hit the wall very soon! The wall was not an unintended pun, it is a harsh reality that a border wall will only serve to increase. In fact, let me get right to that problem: Some people in our government and some who put them there are worried about the increase in population and the drain on resources that they sincerely but incorrectly believe it will cause. They want a giant physical barrier to keep people out! This is a very bad idea for several reasons. 1. Walls don’t work! People find ways to get over, under, or around them. Besides, Most of our illegal aliens living in the U.S. came here legally and simply stayed longer than they were supposed to. So, no matter how you look at it, a wall will not work for that purpose. 2. We actually, as stated earlier need the help! This is not hyperbole. This is truth! One interesting secondary point on this is that the cost of immigrants versus the cost of children. Do we spend more on one than the other? We will have to have more of one or the other if our Republic is to survive. We need labor, we need brain power, and both children and immigrants may have a cost! 3. As Matt Ridley from Oxford would say, Humans are the only species that becomes more prosperous as we become more populous! You might think, as most nationalists think, that an increase in population means a decrease in resources, but we have proven such zero sum thinking is wrong! IN fact, resources have become more abundant with population increases. This is due largely to the brain power increase that population increases produce. Increase in population and travel allow for exchange of products, raw materials, and ideas that tend toward a better overall economy and decrease in the cost of as well as an increase in the availability of resources. A famous bet between two economists involved a basket of commodities. The Simon-Ehrlich Wager “The Simon-Ehrlich Wager describes a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich’s published claim that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, “to stake US$10,000 … on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.” The Background of Our Story: “In 1968, Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon was highly skeptical of such claims, so proposed a wager, telling Ehrlich to select any raw material he wanted and select “any date more than a year away,” and Simon would bet that the commodity’s price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.” The Actual Bet “Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990 as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.” “Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price increases: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon. “Between 1980 and 1990, the world’s population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, the price of each of Ehrlich’s selected metals had fallen. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.” As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon’s favor.” My thanks to Wikipedia for the text in quotes. What does this mean? What this shows is simple, commodities are cheaper over time in general. By using the old noodle a little it is easy to reason from the laws of supply and demand show that cheaper products are more abundant, and therefore, commodities are becoming more abundant even though population seems to place a greater demand on them! My point here is simple, the increase in population is somehow causing an increase in resources. There is a simple reason for this: Increased exchange and increased population results in an increase of products and increase in brain power, that is, ideas, results in more efficient use of resources. In other words, within reason, an increase in population is good for all!
According to the zero sum trumpian argument, more people will result in fewer resources. If we want to use such logic, we should sterilize everyone since more babies would have the same drain on resources that more immigration would produce!In fact, though, we are not reproducing on a scale to keep up with employment demands in coming years in the our country. We will have to have more children or more immigration to our country! We can not ignore it! It is basic economic nationalism I have looked at a lot of economic nationalist movements and they seem to be unable to escape the logic. It almost seems that they are most often late stage, always result in the opposite of the isolation they seek, which then results in wars for resources, quickly followed by the demise of the entity that chose economic nationalism! Either we learn and grow, or our republic dies! Just how strupid is the idea of a wall on our southern border?Well, the answer is VERY! IMMIGRATION
WHY WE NEED IMMIGRATIONWhy we need immigration and why it is good in spite of the tales to the contrary: 1. The vast, overwhelming, amazingly huge majority of illegal aliens in America come here through legal points of entry on legal visas, and simply never left. 2. In spite of trumped-up bogus numbers, immigrants, and especially illegal immigrants commit crime at a much lower rate than American born Americans! 3. Despite short-lived quickly debunked stories to the contrary, there is no evidence of large numbers of non-citizen immigrants voting in American elections! 4. Despite outcries to the contrary, there is no evidence that misuse of available benefits by immigrants is a large scale problem. To the contrary, even after all the local, state and federal costs are figured into the equation, legal and illegal immigrants are a very large net financial gain to our country! In fact, 35% of such benefits are consumed by whites, 25% African Americans, and less than 10% by immigrants! 5. We need the labor! Frankly, Americans are producing fewer and fewer children all the time, and the businesses, especially agricultural businesses, are feeling the pinch. Over the past two years, there have been a number of high profile cases of crops rotting in fields due to labor shortages once the influx of temporary labor was decreased! UNCATEGORIZED
JUDGE PROTECTING CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER FROM DOMESTIC ENEMY!NOVEMBER 28, 2018 LEAVE A COMMENT Judge Protecting Constitutional Order From Domestic Enemy! The battleground Now that the battle over immigration has moved from theory to reality, it is past time to clear the rubble and re-examine just what has been happening to lead us to this point. The war against asylum seekers Each year for the last 20 years as the weather begins to cool in central America, a caravan of people hoping to escape the devastating drug wars starts on a journey toward the United States. In the past, the numbers have risen and fallen during the journey, so at the end, there are no more than 2 or 3 hundred asylum seekers arriving at our borders. These people are then processed according to our law, which is found in INA: ACT 208 – ASYLUM. The Trump administration instructed the Justice Department to ban migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. This is not in line with the above named Act. The fact is that the administration is breaking the law by its latest justice department regulation. It seems that it is illegal to make a regulation that avoids the clear intent of a law passed by Congress! This is the Judge’s ruling: “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.” This is the section of the INS code to which the Judge referred: Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.- “(1) In general. – Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b)”. The Constitutional enemy is domestic It is really very clear, and it is also quite clear that it has been the goal of Trump administration to subvert this law! This is where theory on Constitutional issues and reality meet. This is the Executive office seeking to legislate, and it is time for this to end by Constitutional means! On popular right-wing media sites, it has become popular to say that the Judge, in this case, is breaking the law by keeping the president from executing an executive order and that Judge Tigar is attempting to legislate from the bench! Nothing could be further from the truth! It is the administration which is attempting to break immigration laws by violating the clear intent of the law! The Judge, in this case, is preserving and protecting our Constitutional order from this domestic enemy! UNCATEGORIZED
POSSE COMITATUS, WAR POWERS, TRADE POLICY, AND PURSE STRINGSNOVEMBER 24, 2018 LEAVE A COMMENT Posse Comitatus, War Powers, Trade Policy, and Purse Strings If posse comitatus can be suspended or redefined at the whim of a demagogue if war can be enacted, whether declared or not at the determination of a single fool if trade policy can be determined by a single restrictionist, if money can be spent without recourse or accountability to the bodies who are given charge of such decisions, then we no longer live in a republic, but a monarchy! Who Should Be Responsible? The institutional failure in each of these cases is squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. House of Representatives! None of these actions fall under the Constitutional authority of the President! All of them are the responsibility of the “People’s House” alone! These usurpation of power by the Executive branch are a result of the abdication of those authorities by the U.S. House of Representatives!
THE HIDDEN BALLOT BOXESNOVEMBER 14, 2018 LEAVE A COMMENT The Hidden Ballot Boxes I am seeing a lot of posts with such questions or statements as “Ever notice when votes are “found” they only ever help Democrats?” Research I spent some time doing a bit of research using readily available stats and information from the present and past voting fraud cases and accusations which though informative was none the less, non-conclusive. Using Logic I then tried using some logic to determine the validity of such claims, and the result was far more interesting. Deductive reasoning may not be proof to some people, but there is more than enough evidence to draw some serious conclusions using the method in this case! It seems far more likely that if some chicanery was occurring, it would be more like to come from the Republicans in this case. for instance, which is easier and less likely to be detected, the creation and deployment of new boxes of fraudulent votes, or the hiding of valid boxes from districts known to heavily favor a particular candidate or referendum? When you look at the questioned ballot boxes, it seems far more obvious that adding boxes would be less likely, and more easily found fake by the count than hiding boxes. If one had 50,000 fewer votes than people listed as voters, it should ring some really loud alarm bells. On the other hand, if boxes had been hidden, such ballots would merely be taken as misplaced and would match the number of voters when they were included in the final tally. It becomes obvious quickly that the found ballot boxes are likely valid! UNCATEGORIZED BLUE WAVE, RED WAVE, NO WAVE: ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT THIS YOU LOSE! OCTOBER 18, 2018 LEAVE A COMMENT
Blue Wave, Red Wave, No Wave: Any Way You Look At This You Lose!“Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon Going to the candidates’ debate Laugh about it, shout about it When you’ve got to choose Every way you look at this you lose” Paul Simon The true right now knows the truth! The Right, that is the true Right as opposed top the Trump Right is moving out of the Republican party at least until after the midterm elections! The true right now realizes that Trump is no conservative, that the House and Senate Republicans minus a small handful are neither true right nor Trump right, and that it is time for something else, at least something to stop the hemorrhaging! The answer: Make a hard left to steer out of the skid! At least that is what a large number of Constitutional conservatives have chosen to do this November! Taking a lesson from Hamilton, that if we are going to have an enemy in power, it should be someone from the other party! Do you think this is a good or bad strategy?
Trump’s Cult Of Personality: Why People Believe Stupid Things!When confronted with a powerful truth too obvious to deny, Trump followers will, not challenge trump positions, but rather, change their own long-held beliefs to match the new understanding of Trump’s position. In other words, trump followers do not care about issues as they pretend. They only care about Trump’s position on those issues and are willing to change at any time Trump tells them they should. Suddenly Pro Football is bad, and Trump followers abandon football. Nike is bad because they support Kaepernick so Trump followers set fire to the Nike products they own! I have noticed that they do not do the same with their Harley’s though. So perhaps there is a limit, although it does not seem to exist in the area of beliefs, even core beliefs! Trump has no policy, nor any discernable beliefs, so this requires his followers to do a lot of mental gymnastics to be able to reconcile those long-held beliefs with the fact that Trump now tells them that football and Harley Davidsons are bad! This is known as a cult of personality.
BRET KAVANAUGH: THE OPTIONS ARE FEW, AND NONE OF THEM ARE GOOD!“People are crazy and times are strange I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range I used to care, but things have changed!” Bob Dylan It is September 24, 2018, 12 days before the midterm elections and things are insane! As I write this the nominee for the Supreme Court is credibly accused of attempted rape and sexual assault by at least two women, and the Senate has refused an FBI investigation while continuing to attempt to ram the nomination through! The options are few, and none of them are good for anyone short of one: If the president or the judge himself withdrew him from consideration. All other routes are mined with danger of the long-term nature. Using this tactic another nominee could be put in place, and a vote cast before the election. If the Senate continues and votes, two outcomes are obviously possible: They could pass the judge to SCOTUS, or they could reject him and both options are near equally possible at this time! If the second happens, The midterms are likely to end up being a referendum on Trump’s weakness and poor timing. The Democrats take the House, and perhaps the Senate, and no more SCOTUS appointments pass during the administrations remaining time. The next Democrat takes the helm! If they accept the nomination, the nominee will be constantly in question on every decision, further destroying faith in our necessary institutions. Furthermore, the Senate will look as though it does not care about the rights of women. The party will lose many seats, and probably end up losing both the House and Senate.
A break for some humor:
Trump has been spending so much time on Twitter that he now has a virus! It is a Canarial disease called Twerpies! It is untweetable!DONALD TRUMP, MICHAEL COHEN, AND STORMY DANIELS: IS THIS ELECTION FRAUD? SEPTEMBER 3, 2018 LEAVE A COMMENT Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, And Stormy Daniels: Is This Election Fraud? The standard for legal prosecution is the availability of the truth from everyone. “Everymans evidence”. There are exceptions The right to avoid self-incrimination. You have the 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Professional/client privilege: This is in the court system most often expressed as attorney /client privilege. We need for people to be able to speak the truth to people who help care for their minds and souls, and yes, even their legal matters! This is done since you might choose to reveal things to your lawyer which would put you in greater jeopardy if revealed by him or her. How could you avoid self-incrimination if your own attorney incriminated you? This is in the court system most often expressed as attorney /client privilege. The exception to attorney-client privilege: Attorney-client privilege loses it’s privacy exception when a client uses an attorney to perpetrate a crime. Let’s look at this idea. If you are my attorney, and I say to you one day, I think we need to draw up papers saying I have not met an adult film star, say with the name Wendy Beam, in case this should come up in my future presidential campaign. You would probably think that I was some sort of nut case, and you would probably be right, but you draw up the papers and send them to the federal election commission! Once I am elected, you and some federal investigators realize that I had in fact known Ms. Beam and had carried on an intimate relationship with her. Now, we have an issue! I have now made you a part of my crime of lying to the FEC, and relationships are not what they were! I am now being pursued under federal election fraud charges, and the fact that I included you in the coverup now makes us conspirators in a federal election fraud conspiracy! Furthermore, we no longer have the attorney-client privilege on this topic. You can be compelled to tell all you know about this and related matters and I am looking for a bottle of Jim Beam! We have suddenly gone from a simple deception to defrauding the American electorate of its right to make a sound decision based on all available information! UNCATEGORIZED DONALD TRUMP IS A LIBERAL! THOSE WHO OPPOSE HIM ARE MOSTLY NOT! SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 LEAVE A COMMENT Donald Trump Is A Liberal! Those who Oppose Him Are Mostly Not! Trump Liberals Donald Trump signed the biggest spending bill in history. That is liberal. Donald Trump signed a bill into law providing taxpayer money for the largest abortion provider in the country. Donald Trump signed a bill into law that invades the rights of Americans to exercise their fourth and second amendment rights to avoid unlawful search and seizure and infringement on the right to keep and carry firearms. He did this all while signing one single bill into law. Trump chose to sign! He was fully aware that it contained these bills. He did not have to sign it! He chose to sign it! Ronald Reagan vetoed 19 spending bills because they included such items. How can Trump be considered conservative? How can anyone call Donald Trump conservative? He has broken all the legs from the conservative stool! How can anyone pretend that all those who opposed Donald Trump are liberals? TRUMP LIBERALS NAZIS LESSONS FROM HISTORY SHOULD NOT BE DISCOUNTED! AUGUST 27, 2018 LEAVE A COMMENT Lessons From History Should Not Be Discounted! It is important to note that lessons learned from history are as valid as any other form of logic short of reproducing something in a test tube. If economic systems like economic nationalism or socialism have been tried many times in the past and always produced the same results, that if tried again, they will again, produce the same results. Socialism is, as Margret Thatcher pointed out, fine until you run out of other people’s money. Economic nationalism either ends in the demise of an economy or national socialism of the type that attempts to cure its self-inflicted disease by conquest! This is how you get Nazis! Some people place less value than others on the lessons learned from history. I understand this. What I argue is that from a historic and economic position there is a sequence of decent into national socialism and from all the evidence I see from the administration they are moving us in the wrong direction. The fact that Donald Trump has not pronounced himself Emporer yet does not mean that he would not want to be! The salt of the Republic The fact that there are a few people who understand this context based on what has happened in the past, may well be the only thing that keeps him from going over the edge. Some see this in another way. They do not think that we can call anyone a Nazi unless they are doing fully developed Nazi things, and that is okay. They have that choice and their minds will not be changed by anything short of seeing goosestepping Wehrmacht troops with Swastika flags in the streets. That’s okay, they should be skeptical, as should we all. My argument is that when one sees many of the early Nazi signs, one should act to prevent it going forward! Would it have not been a great thing for the world had Hitler been stopped when he was only the chancellor of Germany, or do you think his continued progression was a good thing? Be the salt! MIDDLE EAST POLICY